-
I'm starting to get the sense that in the age of Twitter, actively engaging with the media in a combative way is the most effective way to get coverage regardless of affiliation and that's really not a great precedent...Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 7 Retweets
❤️ 55 Favorites
Mood +5 🙂
-
It's especially bad because, as a methodology of determining coverage it expands and compounds a number of media biases. It privileges those who work white collar jobs that allow them time to engage on Twitter...Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 6 Favorites
Mood 0
-
It privileges those for whom English is a first language. It privileges those who are already most comfortable speaking to power (white males)...Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 7 Favorites
Mood +2 🙂
-
And it forces women to lean into anger in order to engage in the media landscape as potential subjects, something which creates a different perception for them than men. The same is true for many people of color.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 11 Favorites
Mood 0
-
For the most part, only white men seem to be the type of contrarian who can speak on TV. Also, it biases media coverage towards those who hate the media. Seems like media outlets maintaining a View from Nowhere have trouble airing, say, activists who support media.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 5 Favorites
Mood -1 🙁
-
We end up seeing reporters engaging with people who think journalism is bad, often the type who engage in bad faith as well, which makes them seem foolish and crystallizes the idea that anti media is a serious, singular and present political position.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 3 Retweets
❤️ 4 Favorites
Mood -7 🙁
-
Perhaps establishing the pattern that people who shit on you are the ones who get paid attention is the sort of thing news media should avoid? Also, don't assume that 'supporting journalism' is so standard a position it doesn't deserve coverage.On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 6 Favorites
Mood -5 🙁